IRC log of rdf-star on 2021-04-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:38:07 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
14:38:07 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/04/30-rdf-star-irc
14:38:09 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:38:10 [Zakim]
please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), pchampin
14:38:16 [pchampin]
meeting: RDF-star
14:38:19 [pchampin]
chair: pchampin
14:38:32 [pchampin]
agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star/2021Apr/0008.html
14:38:32 [agendabot]
clear agenda
14:38:32 [agendabot]
agenda+ Announcements and newcomers
14:38:32 [agendabot]
agenda+ Open actions
14:38:32 [agendabot]
agenda+ PR 161: Media-types
14:38:32 [agendabot]
agenda+ PR 162: Semantics
14:38:34 [agendabot]
agenda+ Open-ended discussions
14:38:46 [pchampin]
Previous meeting: https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2021-04-23.html
14:38:53 [pchampin]
Next meeting: https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2021-05-07.html
14:47:27 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #rdf-star
14:47:34 [AndyS]
Hi
14:48:01 [pchampin]
hi
14:48:34 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #rdf-star
14:57:09 [TallTed]
TallTed has joined #rdf-star
14:57:47 [Julian]
Julian has joined #rdf-star
14:59:36 [james_]
james_ has joined #rdf-star
14:59:59 [gatemezing]
gatemezing has joined #rdf-star
15:00:12 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
15:00:51 [olaf]
olaf has joined #rdf-star
15:01:52 [gkellogg]
present+
15:02:16 [gatemezing]
present+
15:02:45 [pchampin]
present+
15:02:53 [james_]
present+
15:03:06 [thomas]
thomas has joined #rdf-star
15:03:31 [olaf]
present+
15:04:12 [thomas]
present+
15:04:19 [AndyS]
present+
15:05:01 [pchampin]
scribe: olaf
15:05:03 [AndyS]
"not knowing who has scribed, I nominate Ora"
15:05:11 [pchampin]
zakim, next agendum
15:05:11 [Zakim]
agendum 1 -- Announcements and newcomers -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:05:48 [olaf]
pchampin: RDF-star will be presented at the KGC
15:05:52 [TallTed]
present+
15:06:05 [pchampin]
q?
15:06:10 [pchampin]
zakim, next agendum
15:06:10 [Zakim]
agendum 1 was just opened, pchampin
15:06:35 [pchampin]
zakim, agendum 2
15:06:35 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'agendum 2', pchampin
15:06:38 [pchampin]
zakim, next agendum
15:06:38 [Zakim]
agendum 2 -- Open actions -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:07:02 [pchampin]
https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Aaction
15:07:09 [olaf]
pchampin: no pending actions on github
15:07:31 [olaf]
andys: checkup on the issue about the SPARQL-star grammar
15:07:52 [pchampin]
https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/163
15:08:02 [olaf]
pchampin: the grammar is not complete
15:08:21 [olaf]
... double-pointy brackets for expressions are missing
15:08:29 [AndyS]
I've made it an "action" and assigned it to myself.
15:08:51 [pchampin]
q?
15:09:08 [olaf]
AndyS: wrapped up about organizing the manifests
15:09:13 [olaf]
... has been merged
15:09:18 [pchampin]
q?
15:09:29 [pchampin]
zakim, next agendum
15:09:29 [Zakim]
agendum 3 -- PR 161: Media-types -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:09:58 [olaf]
pchampin: wrote a section based on discussion from last week
15:10:22 [olaf]
... including a listing of pros and cons of the different approaches
15:10:37 [olaf]
... and clarification that the group didn't reach consensus
15:10:52 [olaf]
... Hope that all arguments are captured
15:11:10 [pchampin]
q?
15:11:18 [thomas]
q+
15:11:26 [pchampin]
ack thomas
15:11:46 [olaf]
thomas: question: what ways are there to make explicit that an endpoint supports SPARQL-star?
15:12:14 [gkellogg]
q+
15:12:29 [pchampin]
ack gkellogg
15:12:34 [olaf]
pchampin: no answer
15:12:49 [TallTed]
https://example.org/sparql -> https://example.org/sparql-star :-)
15:12:55 [olaf]
gkellogg: it would be reasonable to add something for a SPARQL-star service description
15:13:09 [gatemezing]
+1 to add a SPARQL service description
15:13:09 [james_]
https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-service-description
15:13:45 [pchampin]
https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-service-description/#sd-feature
15:13:52 [olaf]
... retrieving the service descr. is not part of the protocol
15:14:18 [james_]
https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-service-description/#sd-resultFormat
15:14:37 [olaf]
... it's a machine-readable approach
15:14:38 [TallTed]
It's not currently part of "every client's" activity; more part of advanced client's activity, when they're looking for a specific (typically more advanced) feature
15:15:31 [olaf]
pchampin: we may define an IRI for a SPARQL-star feature
15:15:42 [olaf]
... to be used in such service description
15:15:59 [olaf]
... and then encourage providers to include it in their service descr.
15:16:15 [james_]
the "standard" features are described in the service description recommendation
15:16:28 [olaf]
AndyS: another use of the service descr. ...
15:16:34 [olaf]
... used by aggregators
15:16:38 [TallTed]
more details, including example features -- https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-service-description/#sd-Feature
15:17:14 [ora]
ora has joined #rdf-star
15:17:16 [pchampin]
Action: pchampin to add a paragraph on SPARQL service description and sd:feature
15:17:43 [TallTed]
https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-service-description/#sd-Language might be more appropriate, i.e., SPARQL-star is a different language than SPARQL 1.0 or SPARQL 1.1
15:18:05 [olaf]
pchampin: good approach for the optimistic perspective regarding the mimetypes
15:18:32 [ora]
present+
15:18:39 [ora]
Sorry I was late.
15:18:40 [TallTed]
see also https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-service-description/#lang-sparql10query and following
15:18:59 [olaf]
... my fear is that having an x-... mimetype may make people use it
15:19:21 [gatemezing]
Zakim, who is here?
15:19:21 [Zakim]
Present: gkellogg, gatemezing, pchampin, james_, olaf, thomas, AndyS, TallTed, ora
15:19:24 [Zakim]
On IRC I see ora, thomas, olaf, gkellogg, gatemezing, james_, TallTed, AndyS, RRSAgent, Zakim, pchampin, agendabot, rhiaro
15:19:29 [olaf]
gkellogg: that's orthogonal to the service descr. issue
15:19:50 [olaf]
... it's reasonable to have an RDF-star namespace
15:20:07 [pchampin]
q?
15:20:39 [olaf]
pchampin: will keep the PR on media types open for a few days
15:20:55 [olaf]
... so that everyone can take a look and react
15:21:04 [pchampin]
q?
15:21:16 [olaf]
... and if no complaints in a few days, then the PR will be merged
15:21:19 [pchampin]
zakim, next agendum
15:21:20 [Zakim]
agendum 4 -- PR 162: Semantics -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:21:43 [olaf]
pchampin: made another PR about the semantics of RDF-star
15:21:55 [olaf]
... it's less disruptive than the previous one
15:22:09 [olaf]
... Two advantages:
15:22:17 [olaf]
first, get rid of hidden IRIs
15:22:47 [AndyS]
q+ about simple literals
15:23:00 [AndyS]
q+ to ask about simple literals
15:23:29 [olaf]
second, it's consistent with SPARQL-star eval.semantics (at least, PA things so)
15:23:48 [olaf]
s/things/thinks
15:24:18 [olaf]
pchampin: doesn't change anything in the semantics-related test suites
15:24:39 [pchampin]
q?
15:24:41 [olaf]
... any opinions about it?
15:24:44 [pchampin]
ack AndyS
15:24:44 [Zakim]
AndyS, you wanted to ask about simple literals
15:25:02 [olaf]
AndyS: talking about simple literals causes trouble
15:25:15 [olaf]
... they don't exist in RDF but only in the syntax
15:25:24 [olaf]
pchampin: that's right
15:25:42 [olaf]
... it was already in the previous version
15:25:48 [pchampin]
https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/cg-spec/editors_draft.html#mapping
15:26:40 [olaf]
... agree that they way it's phrased is ambiguous
15:26:52 [olaf]
... Peter suggested something else
15:27:03 [olaf]
... which is probably a better idea
15:27:29 [olaf]
... PR will be adapted accordingly
15:28:09 [pchampin]
q?
15:28:55 [olaf]
... Waiting for Dörthe and others to take a look
15:29:11 [olaf]
... if no complaints in a couple of days, then it will be merged
15:29:30 [olaf]
... only things it changes are things that none liked before
15:29:42 [pchampin]
q?
15:29:49 [pchampin]
zakim, next agendum
15:29:49 [Zakim]
agendum 5 -- Open-ended discussions -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:30:23 [olaf]
AndyS: "How do we get out of this" question
15:30:55 [olaf]
... how do we get to a finished version?
15:31:25 [olaf]
... what time frame?
15:31:36 [olaf]
... shall we call the next draft the "last call"?
15:31:53 [TallTed]
"time" isn't the best measurement. "the point where none of us see major issues" would be good.
15:32:13 [thomas]
q+
15:32:14 [olaf]
... agrees to TallTed
15:32:25 [olaf]
... but there are no more major issues
15:32:56 [olaf]
TallTed: the point of this task force is to focus on a particular thing
15:33:11 [olaf]
... if we don't see no major issues with that thing, then
15:33:24 [olaf]
... the report should go to RDF-DEV CG
15:33:55 [olaf]
AndyS: The last call may go to RDF-DEV CG
15:34:04 [gkellogg]
q+
15:34:07 [william]
william has joined #rdf-star
15:34:07 [olaf]
... Is there a list of remaining major issues?
15:34:08 [gatemezing]
We can tag here https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues "mejor issues" ?
15:34:35 [olaf]
pchampin: tag issue in github
15:34:55 [olaf]
s/issue/issues
15:35:06 [olaf]
AndyS: tie that to the document
15:35:08 [gkellogg]
q-
15:35:47 [pchampin]
action: create "outsanding issues" in the CG-report as being the things to complete before we're done
15:36:00 [pchampin]
ack thomas
15:36:26 [olaf]
thomas: want to confirm that he is working on a longish email about the semantics
15:36:51 [gkellogg]
q+
15:36:59 [olaf]
... wants to convince the group of moving to transparency semantics
15:37:21 [pchampin]
ack gkellogg
15:37:41 [olaf]
gkellogg: in addition to an email, a PR would be great
15:38:05 [olaf]
... that PR should capture the alternative proposal
15:38:28 [olaf]
AndyS: instead of a PR (which freezes it), put it into a separate document
15:38:52 [olaf]
gkellogg: or on a wiki page
15:39:12 [olaf]
thomas: my aim is still to change it
15:39:21 [TallTed]
q+
15:39:25 [olaf]
... I would like to have a discussion first
15:39:37 [olaf]
... but, of course, prefer a note
15:40:03 [olaf]
pchampin: agrees that, at least, the rationale for the decision should be in the report
15:40:19 [olaf]
... regarding freezing: we can have both
15:40:41 [olaf]
... it's similar to the discussion of the seminal example
15:41:02 [olaf]
... it's good to have the report as the single-point of reference
15:41:18 [olaf]
TallTed: what#s nice here is that we are not an immutable academic paper
15:41:34 [olaf]
... we can make it a "snapshot draft"
15:42:09 [olaf]
... which may include pointers to the discussions in the github issues, the mailing list, etc
15:42:37 [olaf]
pchampin: agrees
15:42:57 [olaf]
... yet, it would be nicer for the reader of the report to have a summary in the report
15:43:06 [olaf]
... rather than just a link to somewhere else
15:43:10 [olaf]
thomas: yes
15:43:30 [pchampin]
action: add a section about the rationale for semantic opacity / transparency
15:43:53 [olaf]
TallTed: may even be marked as a "feature with risk"
15:44:03 [olaf]
AndyS: this can get out of control
15:44:24 [olaf]
... wouldn't have a report with a long discussion of the alternatives
15:44:47 [olaf]
... counterproductive opposite the Property Graphs community
15:45:53 [olaf]
... may seem as if nothing was agreed
15:46:34 [olaf]
pchampin: no, instead, intention is to give a rationale for the solution (semantics) that we keep in the end
15:46:57 [olaf]
... really only explain the consequences of the semantics
15:47:45 [olaf]
TallTed: didn't think the focus of this work was to convert PG people to the RDF world
15:48:00 [pchampin]
q?
15:48:04 [olaf]
... but instead to avoid people turning from RDF to PGs
15:48:24 [olaf]
gkellogg: it provides a formal underpinning
15:48:29 [TallTed]
q-
15:48:39 [olaf]
... marketing
15:49:04 [olaf]
pchampin: to Ted: I think it works both ways
15:49:25 [pchampin]
q?
15:49:26 [ora]
q+
15:49:35 [TallTed]
s/instead to avoid people turning from RDF to PGs/instead to fill a perceived gap in RDF that might send people from RDF to PGs.../
15:49:43 [olaf]
kgellogg: another thing that came up...
15:50:07 [pchampin]
s/kgellogg/gkellogg/
15:50:25 [olaf]
... difference between relationship and attributes in PGs
15:51:26 [olaf]
... there is a distinction that some people see when comparing commerical PGs and RDF triple stores
15:51:47 [olaf]
s/commerical/commercial
15:52:05 [olaf]
pchampin: see how it is related to the PG versus RDF discussion
15:52:20 [olaf]
... but not specific to RDF-star
15:53:46 [olaf]
... usually, we consider this a representation issue
15:54:08 [olaf]
... however, it may also be deeper
15:54:12 [gkellogg]
Discussion is in EasierRDF https://github.com/w3c/EasierRDF/issues/45
15:54:33 [olaf]
... for instance, in Cypher the distinction is also in the query expressions
15:54:53 [olaf]
... perhaps out of scope
15:55:24 [olaf]
gkellogg: suggest to take a look at the issue in EasierRDF github
15:55:30 [olaf]
... and to chime in
15:55:46 [olaf]
AndyS: Actually, it is in OWL
15:55:56 [olaf]
... datatype properties versus object properties
15:56:16 [olaf]
pchampin: okay, OWL has this distinction
15:56:39 [olaf]
... but rarely any visual representations of RDF graphs
15:56:50 [olaf]
... that make this distinction
15:57:11 [olaf]
... e.g., by visualizing an RDF graph more in a PG-like manner
15:57:12 [pchampin]
q?
15:57:21 [pchampin]
ack ora
15:57:40 [olaf]
ora: comment on what Ted said earlier about the perceived gap between
15:57:43 [olaf]
... PG and RDF
15:57:58 [olaf]
... when talking to customers who are just starting
15:58:14 [olaf]
... they almost always ask whether they should go for RDF or PG
15:58:31 [olaf]
... and it seems to them that there is no going back
15:58:45 [olaf]
... RDF-star may help to narrow the gap
15:58:51 [gatemezing]
Ora, that perception is not because you provide both PG and RDF in your tools?
15:59:11 [olaf]
AndyS: primarily about provenance of (RDF) data
15:59:26 [olaf]
... and being able to handle it in a convenient way
15:59:45 [olaf]
ora: to the question from the chat: it is not only about that
15:59:52 [olaf]
... not always the case
16:00:03 [olaf]
... instead, more general discussions about graphs
16:00:04 [pchampin]
q?
16:00:09 [gatemezing]
Thanks ora! Makes sense
16:00:13 [olaf]
... even before a decision which type of DB to pick
16:01:01 [olaf]
pchampin: KGC next week, but no overlap with the call
16:01:02 [gatemezing]
Bye!
16:01:05 [william]
bye!
16:01:05 [ora]
Bye
16:10:34 [olaf]
olaf has left #rdf-star
17:46:49 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star